Every once in awhile, something comes along that absolutely devastates me, and some voice in my head says, “[Pilgrim Soul], you and your Western feminism, you are just nowhere.” This week’s New Yorker has an anonymous piece (not online) on the experience of the women of Iran during the last set of demonstrations. To wit:

One afternoon, Shahrzad had come across a rally to mark Ahmedinejad’s official victory. It was a response to a much bigger demonstration, in support of Moussavi and Karroubi, a few miles to the north. Shahrzad found herself in a press of people, most of them women wearing chadors and holding Ahmadinejad posters. “I realized I was stuck,” she said.

“As we stood there waiting,” Shahrzad went on, “I heard a woman speaking in a loud, coarse voice behind me. She was mouthing off against Ahmadinejad’s opponents. She said, ‘They deserve to be killed like dogs! They want to be free and walk naked down the street. Where do they think they are? Europe? America?’”

Normally, Shahrzad would not have responded to this provocation, which was standard government propaganda. But she felt brused and angry. “The people around me had come to celebrate a victory that I considered to be a theft, and there was a triumphalism in the woman’s voice that I couldn’t stand,” she said. “It suddenly occurred to me that she had sized me up as an opposition sympathizer and was addressing me. Suddenly, she said loudly, very near my ear, ‘Revolting uptown girl!’”

Shahrzad turned to confront her antagonist and saw that the woman was not dressed chastely, as she had expected. “She was stuffed into a tight coat that hugged the contours of her body, and she was made up to the nines! I immediately thought of the last regime, when court officials bribed mobs to come into the streets and demonstrate in favor of the Shah, and the mobs included prostitutes from the red-light district.”

There was no way of knowing whether the woman was a hired rabble-rouser, but her appearance, Shahrzad realized, presented an opportunity. In a stern, admonitory tone, Shahrzad asked, “Why are you wearing so much eyeliner? Weren’t you ever told you should only wear makeup for your husband?”

The woman, taken aback, replied that she didn’t have a husband but then realized that this was the wrong thing to say in front of the Ahmadinejad women, so she started attacking former President Mohammad Khatami. “It’s all his fault!” she exclaimed. “He allowed moral corruption to grow and encouraged women to wear makeup. He’s to blame!”

Shahrzad was enjoying herself now. Several conservatively dressed women had gathered and were following the argument with interest. Shahrzad retorted, “You blame Khatami for the fact that you’re wearing eyeliner? Khatami has been out of power for the past four years! Didn’t you find the time to wash off your eyeliner?” Shahrzad’s gaze fell on the woman’s coat. “And why are you wearing such tight clothes?”

In this way, Shahrzad exacted her revenge. Soon, the Ahmadinejad supporters were agreeing that the woman was inappropriately dressed. One of the said, “Someone might think that you were a woman of ill repute.”

“I’m clean!” the woman wailed. “I’m clean!” But the other woman muttered, “The shopkeeper never admits his curds are off,” and everyone laughed. The object of their derision, defeated, swore at Shahrzad, before forcing her way through the crowd and slinking away.

When Shahrzad finished her story, she and I were smiling, but Kaveh was looking hard at the dregs of his coffee. Shahrzad rested her hand on his and explained, “Kaveh doesn’t like this story. He doesn’t like that I humiliated this woman using arguments I don’t believe in.”

Of course, this is, in a nutshell, the argument we all have out here in the West about what to do about someone like Sarah Palin, except in Iran’s case, the stakes involved are far greater. There’s a part of me that, if this is a prostitute hired for the purpose, can’t blame her, can’t blame her for wanting a day off from being a “woman of ill repute.” And yet given what she’s saying, I know where Shahrzad is coming from too. I don’t know how you get out of a situation like this one with feminism. I don’t know what you do. I don’t know what to tell anyone in stories like these, I don’t. And I don’t know what that says about me, and I don’t know what that says about feminism in the West, and if you’ll excuse me right now, I’m going to go and eat some feelings and listen to some music.

41 Responses to “A Break from Polanski”

oh god. yeah, thats a hard situation. I mean…I can definitely sympathize with Shahrzad wanting to stick it to that woman, who went out of her way to provoke her but, it is sinking to their level. But then again I totally recognize that sometimes you just have to do that in a self-preservationist way and people aren’t perfect. Also if the woman really was a paid prostitute I feel badly for her because I’m sure she’s just considered the lowest of the low and this would be like one more public shaming. ugh.

Hmmm…I didn’t feel conflicted about this. The woman was part of Ahmadinejad’s mob, and the article goes to great lengths to detail the violence (and rape) they unleashed on protesters.

Whether the woman was a prostitute or a paid stooge or not is beside the point. She CHOSE to be part of the mob. She could have stayed home. Instead she tried to instigate more hate and violence, against women in particular. It’s deliciously ironic that she was caught in the trap she tried to set for others.

Even when the bad guys are women–and even if they’re women brainwashed by the Patriarchy–that doesn’t make their defeat any less sweet (or a triumph).

Yeah, Becky, I knew you were going to say that. I guess, for me, my conception of free will isn’t wholly binary. I think in context, some choices are not as free as they initially appear. Sort of like the warning on car mirrors. If you need money, you might find yourself doing this, and there’s a part of me that understand clawing at other women on a basis on which you have been clawed at yourself.

All of which to say, nothing’s either good or bad but thinking makes it so.

But the clawing is still wrong. There might be mitigating factors that cause people to support Ahmadinejad, but they are still wrong to do it, and deserve to be defeated. If they’re defeated using their own weapons, so much the better.

I’m not conflicted about her choice of victim– the woman started the confrontation, and while I agree that there are shades of free will, she was, on some level, there by her own choice. As Becky Sharper says, sometimes the bad guys are women. It’s the tactics that make me uncomfortable, though they are undeniably satisfying in a poetic justice kind of way. Come to think of it, that’s -why- they make me uncomfortable. Palin-bashing feels good too, but that doesn’t mean it’s good for you.

At the very least the possible-prostitute could have yelled pro-Ahmadinejad things that were not simultaneously hateful towards women.

I don’t feel comfortable commenting on possibly dangerous political rallies that happen in Iran, since I know nothing about that, but if this incident had happened here, I would think that this woman was asking for it. Did she not think that while she was criticizing other women’s “modesty,” that someone would notice that she herself was dressed “immodestly?” I think it makes her fair game to be called out as a hypocrite.

Of course, I’d prefer to direct my most of my ire at women who have a lot of actual power and are using it against other women, such as Sarah Palin, who I think is really asking for it.

BeckyS, I’m with you. If the aggressor had been a paid part of the mob, all she had to do was stand there and cheer and boo and chant as directed. But she went well beyond that. She looked for an individual she could bully and intimidate. Shahrzad, on the other hand, was innocently caught in a dangerous situation in which, at least I inferred, she felt physically threatened. In that situation, she was justified in doing what she did. It doesn’t sound to me like she would have started an argument using this kind of rhetoric, but if the bad guys are going to attack you, using their own weapons against them is totally fair.

And insulting someone with the words of a Billy Joel song? Way beyond the pale. She totally deserved a smackdown. /humor/

I don’t hold Shahrzad’s actions against her at all, and I would not characterize them as using arguments she doesn’t believe in. She was exposing the woman’s hypocricy.

At the same time, many of the people around her did believe in those arguments, and they reacted accordingly. Still, the woman got a taste of her own medicine, which is something that always delights me.

It doesn’t delight me that women’s choices are patriarchy-driven, but when some women (like Shahrzad) resist whilst others join in with the oppressors, I can’t help but feel hatred towards the latter.

Who is holding Shahrzad’s actions against her? Now I’m starting to get annoyed. I thought this anecdote was interesting because of all the intersecting gendered power dynamics. I was not putting this up for a vote.

I don’t think anyone thinks there’s some kind of contest going on here between you and BeckySharper — in reviewing the comments thus far, people seem to be saying they don’t agree with you that it’s “devastating” that this woman got called out on her own hypocrisy. If you think we’re not getting your “nuance,” then be more explicit regarding what you’re so upset about.

I agree with you that the way this situation unfolded was not the optimal way of communicating. In a conversation in a living room or a debate at a conference or something of that nature, humiliating your opponent on the basis of her looks and dress is not what I’d consider feminist-or respectful or constructive, for that matter.

But given that Shahrzad was in fear for her safety and was gratuitously attacked by this woman, I’d say the boundaries of civilized discourse are not relevant. Being caught in a hostile mob isn’t a nuanced situation, right?

pedimd: I didn’t say it was “devastating” that the woman got humiliated. I did not take a side. I called the whole anecdote “devastating.”

What I am annoyed about is that this immediately turned into me being an apologist for Ahmadinejad’s mob. I didn’t do anything of the sort. I’m glad you and Becky and others think this is a black and white situation; I think the whole situation is fucked up.

Honestly, it’s pretty frustrating to get such dismissive comments about a personal, emotional reaction.

Ok, I see that you are having a personal emotional reaction to the whole anecdote, but I still don’t get why — Why this particular anecdote? To me it’s just another story of one woman dissing other women in order to get some power for herself. It’s not a new idea, and it happens all the time, and I think the commenters here know that already. In fact, the only newish thing was that the woman in question got called on it, something I’d like to see more of — so, again, why the devastation?

Because it seems to me to be an excellent illustration of how women can’t win – either Shahrzad or her oppressor. Because it seems to me an illustration of how our dumbass internet arguments about whether men should call Sarah Palin a bitch apparently fall away when the stakes are higher. Because it drives me insane that we are pretending that we “get” this situation when we don’t have to experience it ourselves.

Well, I can definitely say that I don’t “get” what it’s like to be a woman living in Iran right now. I don’t “get” what it’s like to have to be a prostitute to earn some money (if that’s what she was). I don’t “get” what it’s like to need money so badly that you would take some from people you hate (maybe) to shout out political slogans at a rally (if that’s what happened). And I didn’t make or read any comments that were critical of any of those aspects of the story. But, I do recognize hyposcrisy, and that’s what I commented on.

And, actually — not knowing all the details of this incident –I think the stakes are higher when we are talking about someone like Sarah Palin. She was potentially going to have a lot of power over millions of people and she was willing to throw women and children’s rights under the bus to get it.

You posted a story and said you had an emotional reaction without explaining that reaction. People gave their own reactions; we are not “voting.” If you thought it was an excellent illustration of how women can’t win, you could have said so. Shahrzad seems uncomfortable with having used the master’s tools, which is what I has a reaction to.

“Because it seems to me to be an excellent illustration of how women can’t win – either Shahrzad or her oppressor.”

I agree that it’s hard to feel bad about someone getting called out as a hypocrite. But I think what Pilgrim Soul is saying is that it sucks that women have to resort to supporting the Patriarchy in their struggle against the Patriarchy. I want to call Sarah Palin a stupid bitch. But I don’t (well, I do, but not in public). In public I will question her intelligence in a non-sexist way. Because I don’t want to advance Patriarchy but using its language against someone of my own gender.

PS – Twisty would get what you’re saying. It’s pretty advanced Patriarchy blaming. That is you point, correct? You are not castigating either woman – you are pointing your finger straight at the Big P.

I too blame her a little, as a visceral reaction, which is why I say I basically hate the whole thing. There’s no win. I hate hating on someone who’s trying to clutch what little power is available to her.

I see what you’re saying. It’s like women who protest against abortion, have an abortion, and go right back to protesting against it. I just think what PS is sad about is that this woman HAD to resort to saying something she didn’t believe in.

@ Lucy and PS — I don’t think pointing out how women can’t win is advanced feminism. I think it’s pretty basic, and, speaking for myself, I skipped over that part of the story as obvious, and instead focused on the part that seemed most interesting. If you wanted to get into a more in-depth discussion of all the myriad and global ways women can’t win, you should have said so.

And, PS, I’m sorry that you feel “smacked at,” but sometimes your point is not as clear as you think it is. And sometimes it is clear, but not everyone agrees.

It’s awkward to converse this way when everyone is commenting simultaneously, but I read this from PS:

I hate hating on someone who’s trying to clutch what little power is available to her.

And wanted to add that I agree with you right up to the point where she made one choice that she didn’t have to — and that was to dis other women. She could still have had whatever little power and benefits she was getting from the situation without adding that in.

To me the “part that was most interesting” was that the immodestly dressed woman slinks away because OTHER WOMEN shamed her using Patriarchal arguments that those women BELIEVE in, egged on by a woman who does not believe the very words coming from her mouth. End result: one hypocrite is called out and a group of women who support the Patriarchy get to feel superior while perpetuating the oppression of other women.

pedimd: I’m just not sure what happened to good old common courtesy, like asking because you don’t understand the point.

I do think some people seem to have understood what I was getting at, and I don’t agree that the more interesting thing to do with an anecdote like this is to decide who was “right.” In some ways I think that’s clear – Shahrzad was facing an immediate physical threat, and she defended herself in a way that deflected that pretty well. In another way, I think when you’re faced with a “colluder” who has membership cards in multiple underclasses – female, sex worker – it is entirely different. I don’t agree necessarily that they are just to be thrown out for “colluding.”

As for the other, if you don’t like what I have to say, I guess you’re free not to read me. I’m perfectly ready to admit when things aren’t clear, I’m perfectly ready to admit that sometimes I’m a blowhard or wrong or just not eloquent. What I find hard to deal with is that I am not as interested these days in writing rants, and yet people are often responding as though I were. I am fine with people disagreeing with me; I am not fine with them attributing positions to me I have not taken. I may have been unclear in the original post; in my responses in this thread I have been clear that I simply don’t find it as easy to condemn the aggressive woman as the rest of you do.

Anyway, readers, I’m sorry for this mini-shitstorm. I am still a rather defensive writer.

PS — regarding how to respond to “colluders” of various types, and when, if ever, they should be “thown out”: I think that would be a very interesting and excellent discussion, which could have a thread of its very own.

I cringe at the term “colluder” when it pops up in feminist conversations. Going with the idea that we’re all soaking in the patriarchy, it makes it pretty much impossible to not collude in some fashion. And somehow singling those women viewed as colluders also feeds into the problem because it’s more shit heaped on women. It’s that whole thing of fighting over crumbs when what we all want is a larger piece of the pie.

Pilgrim Soul wrote: “I don’t know what you do. I don’t know what to tell anyone in stories like these, I don’t.”

I think acknowledging that we cannot and nor do we want to live every life experience on the planet is a start. That every situation has a million shades of grey and that sometimes using arguments that we don’t support in order to stay safe and sane is a reality that many people around the world live with daily.

There are times to be staunch feminists and there are times to stay safe and alive. If you have the privilege to be a staunch feminist all the time great, but not everyone else around the world does.

I used to interview and assess refugee claimants, and I know how hard it is to identify and understand someone else’s experience when it is so alien to your own. Accept it as truth, understand that the world is truly fucked up and that you are lucky to have what you do, I know I certainly did after each interview.

@Rebecca: Yes, and I think the same can be said for both women in this situation, oddly enough. I mean, in some ways I wonder about her, if she’s wearing the makeup, how did she get there? Could it be that this was a way to strike a deal with the authorities?

@pedimd: can’t answer for notmandy, but as for myself, I think we can’t criticize them from the “I would never do that” place. It’s like that thread the other day on coping strategies vs. revolution. As copers ourselves, we can’t act as though everyone else must be perfect revolutionaries all the time, which is something that often comes up in the context of the Middle East, it seems to me. I’m stealing this from somewhere else, I just can’t remember where, but while supporting women in the Middle East is obviously crucial, it pisses them off when our support often takes the form of “overthrow your patriarchy so it’ll look like ours.”

I think we can get too caught up in the question of, “Are we sisters or are we not?” It seems to me that can’t be a one-way declaration, anyway, and sisterhood, whatever it is, may not involve nonstop hair-braiding. But do we owe women “colluders” a different level of understanding than we owe “male” colluders, in my opinion. After all, there’s some tragedy, as Lucy’s already pointed out, in the fact that even when women seek head pats from their oppressors, their foothold is tenuous – the crowd turns on her pretty fast.

I’m not arguing that we not be understanding towards women “colluders,” but I think we can be understanding while holding them responsible for some choices they make.

I could go on and on about this because I’ve been thinking about it a lot, but I feel like maybe I’m getting off on a tangent unrelated to this thread? I’m new to posting and not sure of the etiquette. But I would at some future point be really interested in what people think about the issue of individual choice in the context of patriarchy — sure, we all want to be understanding of other women, but at what point do you say understanding is not enough?

@pedimd: honestly I feel very uncomfortable judging either woman, as I have no idea where either is coming from. I don’t believe that I can begin to understand what its like to be a woman in a nation like Iran and what possible motives or pressures hang over them.

I agree, I know nothing about being a woman in Iran. I also think that this was sort of a minor incident between two individual women, neither with a lot of power to change the larger system. As far as I know, both left without getting physically harmed and went back to the lives they were living, so in the end, I don’t feel as worked up about it as Pilgrim Soul.

I think it’s great that feminism emphasizes understanding and not judging and not using the master’s tools and all the good things that everyone on this site believes in, but the question I’m struggling with is — how to handle it when judgements and decisions have to be made? There’s not always the luxury of considering how living in a patriarchal system mitigates a person’s actions. (Again, sorry if too off topic.)